2002 Toyota Tacoma
Problems, recalls and owner-reported issues
Structure is the leading concern among 360 owner complaints filed for this model year. This is the 9th highest complaint count among 26 Tacoma model years with reports.
Of the 2002 reports, 30 involved a crash and 3 involved a fire. 23 people were injured.
What owners report most often
Recalls and investigations
Tires, temporary/emergency spare tireNov 23, 2012
Toyota is recalling certain model year 2001 through 2004 Tacoma light trucks manufactured from August 28, 2000, through August 27, 2004, and originally sold, or currently registered, in the following cold climate states with high road salt usage: Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia. The spare tire in the subject vehicles is located underneath the rear of the vehicle and held by a spare tire carrier. A lift plate on the carrier is used to help raise, lower and retain the tire. During its manufacture, the lift plate may not have been sufficiently coated with anti-corrosion materials. If the plate is insufficiently coated and the vehicle is operated in cold climate regions where road salts are frequently used, road spray can reach the carrier assembly and corrode the lift plate.
Corrosion of the plate could cause it to break, which could result in detachment of the spare tire from the vehicle. Detachment of the spare tire could result in a road hazard which may increase the risk of a vehicle crash.
Toyota will notify owners, dealers will inspect the vehicle and replace the spare tire carrier lift plate as necessary, free of charge. The recall began in February 2013. Owners may contact their Toyota dealer or the Toyota Customer Experience Center at 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 12V542000 on NHTSA.gov
Exterior lightingJul 17, 2006
CERTAIN AJ MOTORSPORT COMBINATION LAMPS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON THE ABOVE LISTED PASSENGER VEHICLES. COMBINATION LAMPS NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
LACK OF AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS IN THE LAMPS WILL DECREASE LIGHTING VISIBILITY TO OTHER DRIVERS AND MAY POSSIBLY RESULT IN A VEHICLE CRASH.
AJ MOTORSPORT WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER REIMBURSEMENT FOR THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 31, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT AJ MOTORSPORT AT 626-618-2026.
Campaign 06E065000 on NHTSA.gov
Exterior lightingMar 23, 2006
CERTAIN PRO-A MOTORS CORNER LAMPS, TURN SIGNALS, AND HEADLIGHTS SOLD AS REPLACEMENT LAMPS FOR USE ON CERTAIN PASSENGER VEHICLES LISTED ABOVE. SOME COMBINATION LAMPS THAT ARE NOT EQUIPPED WITH AMBER SIDE REFLECTORS FAIL TO CONFORM TO FEDERAL MOTOR VEHICLE SAFETY STANDARD NO. 108, LAMPS, REFLECTIVE DEVICES, AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT.
WITHOUT THE AMBER REFLECTORS, THE VEHICLE WILL BE POORLY ILLUMINATED, POSSIBLY RESULTING IN A VEHICLE CRASH WITHOUT WARNING.
PRO-A MOTORS WILL NOTIFY OWNERS AND OFFER TO REPURCHASE THE LAMPS. THE RECALL BEGAN ON APRIL 3, 2006. OWNERS MAY CONTACT PRO-A MOTORS AT 323-838-2988.
Campaign 06E026000 on NHTSA.gov
Suspension, front, control arm, lower ball jointMay 17, 2005
ON CERTAIN SPORT UTILITY VEHICLES, DUE TO A MANUFACTURING ISSUE IN THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINT, THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THE SURFACE OF THE BALL OF THE JOINT MAY HAVE BEEN SCRATCHED. THE BALL JOINT MAY EVENTUALLY EXPERIENCE EXCESSIVE WEAR AND LOOSENESS, RESULTING IN INCREASED STEERING EFFORT.
THE LOWER BALL JOINT MAY SEPARATE FROM THE KNUCKLE CAUSING LOSS OF STEERING CONTROL AND A CRASH COULD OCCUR.
DEALERS WILL REPLACE THE FRONT SUSPENSION LOWER BALL JOINTS FREE OF CHARGE. THE RECALL BEGAN ON JULY 5, 2005. OWNERS MAY CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 05V225000 on NHTSA.gov
Fuel system, gasoline, delivery, hoses, lines/piping, and fittingsMay 19, 2003
ON CERTAIN PICKUP TRUCKS, DURING SIDE IMPACT NCAP TEST (I.E. LINCAP TEST), A FLANGE AT THE REAR END OF THE DOUBLE CAB BODY DEFORMED AND INTERFERED WITH THE FUEL INLET HOSE THAT CONNECTS THE FUEL FILLER PIPE AND FUEL TANK, RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE FUEL INLET HOSE.
THIS DAMAGE COULD RESULT IN FUEL LEAKAGE, WHICH COULD RESULT IN A FIRE IF IN THE PRESENCE OF AN IGNITION SOURCE.
DEALERS WILL INSTALL A FUEL HOSE PROTECTOR ON THE BODY FLANGE. OWNER NOTIFICATION BEGAN JUNE 3, 2003. OWNERS WHO TAKE THEIR VEHICLES TO AN AUTHORIZED DEALER ON AN AGREED UPON SERVICE DATE AND DO NOT RECEIVE THE FREE REMEDY WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME SHOULD CONTACT TOYOTA AT 1-800-331-4331.
Campaign 03V189000 on NHTSA.gov
Representative owner complaints
360 reports, newest first.
Structure, Feb 14, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT RUSTING AND CORROSION WAS DISCOVERED ON THE FRAME. THE CONTACT INDICATED THAT THE REAR DRIVER'S SIDE LEAF SPRING SHACKLE HAD SUNK INTO THE UNDER FRAME DUE TO THE RUST AND CORROSION. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT DIAGNOSED OR REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DEFECT BUT NO SOLUTION WAS OFFERED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 150,000. *TR
Structure, Feb 12, 2014
I PURCHASED THIS TRUCK WITH 100,000 MILES IN A PRIVATE SALE IN 2010. I DROVE IT FOR A FEW YEARS AND WHEN I BROUGHT IT IN FOR INSPECTION THEY FAILED IT FOR A RUSTED OUT FRAME. THEY SAID THAT THEY WOULDN'T DRIVE IT AND THAT IT WAS VERY DANGEROUS. I CALLED TOYOTA AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THEY WOULDN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP ME OUT. THEY SAID SINCE THE PREVIOUS OWNER DID NOT GET IT SPRAYED THE WARRANTY WAS NULL AND VOID. SO MY TRUCK THAT HAS 100,000 MILES AND WAS KBB AT $8-$9K IS WORTH NOTHING. I AM NOT A PERSON THAT IS WELL OFF AND THAT WAS A BIG HIT FOR ME. I LIVE PAY CHECK TO PAY CHECK AND I WONDER HOW MANY OTHERS WERE EFFECTED BY AN OBVIOUSLY CHEAP FRAME. 100,000 MILES AND THE FRAME RUSTS, THAT JUST SEEMS WRONG. *TR
Structure, Feb 12, 2014
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME HAD STARTED TO DETERIORATE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER WHERE THE TECHNICIAN APPLIED AN UNDERCOATING TO THE FRAME. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE COATING EVENTUALLY WORE OFF. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 130,000.
Structure, Tires, Jan 28, 2014
SOMETIME IN 2012, MY SPARE TIRE AND RIM WERE LOST ON THE HIGHWAY DUE TO A FAILED SPARE TIRE CARRIER. THE LIFT PLATE ON THE SPARE TIRE CARRIER, FAILED DUE TO CORROSION AND RELEASED THE SPARE TIRE (AND RIM) ON THE HIGHWAY. NO CRASH OF INCIDENT OCCURRED BECAUSE NO ONE WAS FOLLOWING THE VEHICLE AT THE TIME. *TR
Structure, Jan 24, 2014
INFORMED BY DEALER THAT FRAME IS RUSTED THROUGH AND TRUCK IS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. ALSO INFORMED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A SERVICE BULLETIN FOR THIS PROBLEM. BUT MY TRUCK IS NO LONGER ELIGIBLE FOR REPAIR UNDER THE VOLUNTARY SERVICE RECALL (OF WHICH I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED), AS IT HAD EXPIRED. I THINK TOYOTA SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE. THEY RECOGNIZED THEIR DEFECTIVE PRODUCT; HOWEVER MY TRUCK IS INELIGIBLE FOR REPAIR BECAUSE THEY GET TO LIMIT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE THEIR REMEDY IS NOT TECHNICALLY A "RECALL". I, AND I'M SURE MANY OTHERS, ARE BY NECESSITY, DRIVING UNSAFE VEHICLES. *TR
Structure, Dec 11, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR UNRELATED REPAIRS WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE SUB-FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. AS A RESULT, THE TECHNICIAN ADVISED THE CONTACT THAT THE VEHICLE WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOT MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,000.
Structure, Dec 3, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO THE DEALER FOR SERVICE UNDER NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER: 12V542000 (TIRES). THE CONTACT WAS ADVISED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD NOT BE SERVICE UNDER THE RECALL BECAUSE OF EXCESSIVE CORROSION. THE CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS NEVER ADVISED OF CORROSION WHEN THE VEHICLE WAS INSPECTED IN 2010 FOR A MANUFACTURER'S WARRANTY. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE ISSUE. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 95,000.
Structure, Dec 2, 2013
2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SEVERE FRAME RUST ISSUE AND NO WARNING OF RECALLS. *SMD TOYOTA USA INFORMED THE CONSUMER, A RECALL WAS NOT ISSUED, BUT A CUSTOMER SERVICE PROGRAM WAS OFFERED, BUT IT EXPIRED AT THE END OF 2011. THE CONSUMER WAS INFORMED SIX LETTERS WERE MAILED INFORMING HER OF THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE CONSUMER STATED SHE NEVER RECEIVED ANY LETTERS.
Structure, Nov 26, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR FRAME WAS DETERIORATED. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER, WHO STATED THAT THEY WOULD NOT REPAIR THE PROBLEM. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE DEALER INFORMED HIM THAT THE VEHICLE WAS INCLUDED IN A MANUFACTURER'S RECALL AND SEVERAL NOTICES HAD BEEN SENT HOWEVER, THE CONTACT FAILED TO HAVE THE VEHICLE SERVICED PER THE RECALL. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE PROBLEM. THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 220,000.
Structure, Nov 15, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR STATE INSPECTION WHEN HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FRONT AREA OF THE FRAME WAS SEVERELY CORRODED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED AND ADVISED THAT THE FRAME WAS NOT SAFELY COATED THEREFORE, THEY DENIED ASSISTANCE WITH ANY REPAIRS. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 161,250.
Suspension, Oct 25, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT WHILE DRIVING 30 MPH, HE HEARD A KNOCKING NOISE IN THE REAR OR THE VEHICLE. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A CERTIFIED MECHANIC FOR INSPECTION WHERE THEY STATED THAT THE REAR SHOCK WAS CORRODED NEEDED TO BE REPLACED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE MANUFACTURER WAS NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 151,000.
Air bags, Other or unspecified, Oct 19, 2013
DEAR [XXX], I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR EMAIL BUT I AM COMPLETELY SATISFIED WITH MY 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA PICK UP TRUCK AT THE MOMENT WITH 134,000 MILES AS OF TODAY. THE PROBLEM LIES WITH THE ?DEFECTIVE AIR BAGS AND DEFECTIVE COMPUTER AIR BAG.? OVER A YEAR AGO, THIS WAS ACCESSED FROM HALEY LOCATED OFF RT 288 AND THE AIR BAG LIGHT WAS COMING ON AT THAT TIME. I PAID FOR A DIAGNOSTIC TESTING AND IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED THEN, NOT TO REOCCUR A YEAR LATER. IN ANY CASE, IF A TOYOTA VEHICLE HAS DEFECTIVE PARTS SUCH AS THE AIR BAG AND ITS COMPUTER THAT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE MANUFACTURER TO REPLACE THE PART AND ABSORB THE LABOR AND COSTS INVOLVED TO DO SO NOT AT THE EXPENSE OF THE CLIENT. THE CLIENT DID NOT CAUSE THE PROBLEM, IT IS A DEFECT IN THE MANUFACTURING OF THE VEHICLE. THE PROBLEM I AM NOW FACING IS THAT HALEY TOYOTA WANTS ME TO ABSORB THIS COST OF PARTS AND LABOR TO THE TUNE OF $711.00 FOR A DEFECTIVE AIR BAG. I HAVE NOT BEEN IN CONTACT WITH AN ATTORNEY SPECIALIZING IN AUTO INJURY, BUT WITH SOME RESEARCH AND TAKING WITH A FRIEND OF MINE WHO IS A LAWYER; HE HIGHLY SUGGESTS THAT UNLESS TOYOTA REPLACES THE PARTS AND LABOR AT THEIR EXPENSE THAT I SHOULD PROCEED WITH HIRING AN ATTORNEY AND EXPLAIN WHAT IS GOING ON WITH THE AIR BAG AND WHAT HALEY HAS SAID. FOR HALEY TO DISMISS THIS DEFECTIVE PART AND SAY THAT THEY CANNOT BE RESPONSIBLE IS IN ITSELF AN ?EGREGIOUS? REMARK FOR WHICH THEY CAN BE LIABLE FOR IF SOMETHING WERE TO HAPPEN WHILE THE PASSENGER IS DRIVING THE CAR/TRUCK IN QUESTIONED. INFACT, THEY SHOULD NEVER HAVE ALLOWED ME TO LEAVE THE PREMISE THIS PAST FRIDAY KNOWING ALL OF THIS, BECAUSE IF A MAJOR ACCIDENT WERE TO HAPPEN THEY WOULD BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE AS WELL AS TOYOTA ITSELF. THANK YOU. [XXX] INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR
Steering, Suspension, Structure, Sep 22, 2013
AFTER HAVING MY 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA OFF THE ROAD AND GARAGED FOR THE PAST 3 YEARS, I WAS GETTING THE TRUCK READY TO BE DRIVEN ON THE ROAD AGAIN. I AM THE ORIGINAL OWNER. I TOOK THE TRUCK OFF THE ROAD BECAUSE MY JOB WAS ELIMINATED IN OCTOBER 2010. AFTER CHANGING THE OIL LAST WEEKEND IN MY GARAGE I NOTICED AN ABNORMAL AMOUNT OF RUST ON THE FRAME. IN FACT, SO MUCH RUST THAT THE RUBBER BODY MOUNT BLOCK ON TOP OF THE REAR LEAF SPRING SNAPPED OFF IN MY HAND. THE LEAF SPRINGS, BRAKE LINES, AND FRONT SUSPENSION AND FRAME ARE ALL IN QUESTION REGARDING VEHICLE SAFETY. I IMMEDIATELY DID RESEARCH ONLINE TO CHECK OUT WHAT I THOUGHT WAS ABNORMAL AMOUNTS OF RUST ON THE FRAME AND TO SEE IF ANYONE ELSE HAD EXPERIENCED THIS TOO. I WAS SHOCKED AT WHAT I FOUND. A HUGE SAFETY ISSUE WITH TOYOTA TACOMA RUSTED FRAMES. I COME TO FIND OUT ONLINE THAT TOYOTA HAS A HISTORY OF RUSTED FRAMES, BREAKING FRAMES, UNSAFE FRAMES, AND A RECALL CURRENTLY FOR A REAR SPARE TIRE MOUNT ISSUE DUE TO RUST. I ALSO FOUND OUT TOYOTA WAS REPLACING FRAMES ON MY MODEL. I CALLED MY DEALERSHIP TO SET UP AN APPOINTMENT TO HAVE THIS TRUCK INSPECTED FOR PENNSYLVANIA STATE REQUIREMENTS AND TO HAVE THE RUST CHECKED. THEY TOLD ME MY VEHICLE WAS NOT VALID FOR THE RUST INSPECTION AND THE FRAME REPLACEMENT BECAUSE THE PROGRAM EXPIRED, I WAS TOLD TO CALL TOYOTA. I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY TOYOTA OR MY DEALER THERE WAS AN ISSUE, NOT BY MAIL, PHONE CALLS OR CERTIFIED MAIL. I HAD THE TRUCK PARKED IN MY GARAGE FOR THREE YEARS SO IT WASN'T EVEN ON THE ROAD DURING THIS TIME. SEVERAL PHONE CALLS LATER TO TOYOTA AND THEY REFUSE TO REPLACE MY FRAME UNDER THE CUSTOMER CARE PROGRAM CITING I DID NOT HAVE THE UNDERCOATING APPLIED BY DECEMBER OF 2012. TOYOTA CUSTOMER SERVICE SAID I COULD WELD REINFORCEMENT PLATES TO MY FRAME MYSELF OR FIND A JUNKYARD FRAME. REALLY TOYOTA?
Suspension, Sep 6, 2013
I AM A CANADIAN CITIZEN, CURRENTLY THE SECOND OWNER OF A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA AND HAVE ACCESSED THIS SITE TO INFORM OTHER OWNERS BUT HAD TO REGISTER THIS COMPLAINT UNDER THE PREVIOUS OWNERS NAME. THIS VEHICLE WAS PURCHASED IN NEW HAMPSHIRE AND RETURNED TO CANADA. IN LATE 2011 I WAS ADVISED THAT MY VEHICLE FRAME WAS STARTING TO SHOW SEVERE RUST CORROSION. I TOOK STEPS, AS ADVISED, TO HAVE IT UNDERCOATED BUT WHEN TAKING IT IN FOR INSPECTION THIS YEAR, I WAS TOLD IT WOULD NOT PASS INSPECTION. I WAS FORTUNATE TO BE ABLE TO DO A TEMPORARY FIX BY HAVING THE FRAME WELDED BUT THAT WOULD ONLY BE IN THE SHORT TERM. IN PURSUING THIS WITH TOYOTA USA I'VE TOLD THAT THERE WAS AN EXTENDED WARRANTY PUT ON THESE VEHICLES WHICH EXPIRED IN 2011 AND SINCE THEY DIDN'T HAVE IT REGISTERED IN THE UNITED STATES THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO. IT SEEMS LIKE THEY DO EVERYTHING TO AVOID RESPONSIBILITY FOR THIS PROBLEM BUT I AM AWARE THEY HAVE REPLACED MANY FRAMES FOR SIMILAR VEHICLES AT THEIR COST OR PAID OUT THE CUSTOMERS BY BUYING BACK THE VEHICLES. SO MANY CUSTOMERS ARE FRUSTRATED WITH TOYOTA, ME INCLUDED AND THEY'VE ADVISED ME SINCE IT ISN'T REGISTERED IN THE US CURRENTLY THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING. ON THE OTHER HAND, CHECKING WITH TOYOTA CANADA THEN THEY SAY I HAVE TO RESOLVE THE MATTER WITH TOYOTA USA. TALK ABOUT PASSING THE BUCK BACK AND FORTH. THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN NORTH AMERICA SINCE 2002 AND WAS BUILT IN CALIFORNIA. WHY SHOULD THIS MATTER? IT'S STILL A TOYOTA. POOR CUSTOMER RELATIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH SIMILAR PROBLEMS.
Tires, Wheels, Aug 1, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE SPARE TIRE BECAME DETACHED FROM THE VEHICLE WHILE TRAVELING APPROXIMATELY 5 MPH. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED PRIOR TO THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT THAT THE REMEDY FOR NHTSA CAMPAIGN NUMBER 12V542000 (TIRES) HAD NOT BEEN FINALIZED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 164,000. UPDATED 09/05/13*LJ
Structure, May 30, 2013
2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. CONSUMER WRITES IN REGARDS TO VEHICLE SPLIT IN HALF DUE TO RUSTED FRAME. *SMD THE CONSUMER STATED THE FRAME RUSTED FROM THE INSIDE OUT.
Structure, May 20, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME OF THE VEHICLE EXHIBITED SEVERE RUST. THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO A DEALER FOR DIAGNOSIS AND THE CONTACT WAS REFERRED TO THE MANUFACTURER. THE MANUFACTURER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 140,000.
Structure, May 10, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE REAR BUMPER HAD RUSTED AND THE CONTACT WAS UNABLE TO TOW ANYTHING WITH THE VEHICLE. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER ABOUT THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 65,000 AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 110,000. *TR
Structure, Apr 30, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME AND THE REAR LEAF SPRINGS CONTAINED MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF RUST AND WAS UNSAFE TO DRIVE DUE TO THE FAILURE. THE VEHICLE HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED. THE FAILURE AND CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 151,000.
Fuel/propulsion system, Apr 8, 2013
I COULD HEAR A RATTLING NOISE. UPON INSPECTION I SAW THAT THE FUEL TANK HAD DROPPED ALMOST TO THE GROUND. THE REAR STRAP , THAT HOLDS THE FUEL TANK TO THE BODY HAD BROKEN FROM CORROSION(RUST) . THIS RUST HAD ALSO DESTROYED THE PROTECTIVE SHIELD THAT WAS MOUNTED OVER THE FUEL TANK STRAP ,TO PROTECT IT FROM CORROSION AND PHYSICAL DAMAGE. A GAS TANK FALLING TO THE ROAD IS A SAFETY HAZARD. *TR
Engine, Mar 26, 2013
WHEN ENGINE (COLD) FIRST STARTED, THERE IS ENGINE (PISTON SLAP/RATTLE) NOISE. SUCH CONTINUES FOR APPROX. ONE FULL MINUTE AND THEN SOUNDS NORMAL. SUCH NOISE IS VERY EXPENSIVE TO REPAIR, COMPLETE ENGINE OVERHAUL AND SHOULD CERTAINLY NOT BE OCCURRING IN VEHICLE WITH ONLY 50,000 MILES. TRUCK WAS VERY CAREFULLY BROKEN IN WHEN NEW AND ALL APPROPRIATE OIL CHANGES AT TOYOTA RECOMMENDED TIMES...OR EVEN SOONER. *TR
Structure, Mar 25, 2013
THIS VEHICLE WAS ALREADY INVOLVED IN A "CAMPAIGN" BY TOYOTA TO REPLACE SEVERELY RUSTED FRAMES. NOW THE SPARE TIRE LIFT PLATE IS ALSO RUSTED THROUGH ON MANY OF THEM WHICH TOYOTA IS "IMPLEMENTING A REMEDY FOR". MY COMPLAINT IS THAT I HAVE A SEVERELY RUSTED HOUSING OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL, NEXT TO AND JUST BELOW THE RUSTED SPARE TIRE CARRIER LIFT PLATE,TOYOTA REFUSES TO PAY FOR THE RUSTED THROUGH HOUSING OF THE REAR DIFFERENTIAL. THIS IS A NEGLIGENT SAFETY ISSUE ON THEIR PART, BECAUSE THOSE OWNERS WHO ARE NOT AWARE OF THE LEAKAGE OF THIS PART MAY FIND THEMSELVES WITHOUT POWER, OR WORSE PERHAPS, A LOCKUP OF THAT PART WHEN THEY ARE GOING 65 MPH ON HIGHWAY POSSIBLY WITH CHILDREN IN THEIR VEHICLE. THE RUST ON THESE VEHICLES IS LEGENDARY AMONG TOYOTA OWNERS AS EVIDENCED BY THEIR COMPLAINTS ON THE INTERNET. TOYOTA DID REPLACE THE FRAME ON MY 2002 TACOMA, BUT IN MY OPINION, IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO REPLACE THE RUSTED OUT HOUSING. IT IS NOT AS IF THAT IS THE ONLY RUST ON THIS VEHICLE, AND NO OTHER VEHICLES THAT I AM AWARE OF HAVE THIS PROBLEM. *TR
Structure, Jan 29, 2013
UPON BRINGING 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA TO MECHANIC FOR TIRE ROTATION AND OIL CHANGE, THE FRAME BROKE IN HALF DUE TO RUST AND CORROSION. CONTACTED TOYOTA WHO SAID IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER 2008 EXTENDED CORROSION WARRANTY SINCE IT HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT IN FOR THE UNDERCARRIAGE COMPOUND APPLICATION BEFORE 2011. WE WERE NEVER NOTIFIED BY ANY RECALL THAT IT SHOULD BE BROUGHT IN. *TR
Structure, Jan 23, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE FRAME NEAR THE REAR PASSENGER'S SIDE TIRE WAS RUSTED. THE CONTACT TOOK THE VEHICLE TO A MECHANIC AND WAS TOLD THAT THE FRAME COULD NOT BE REPAIRED AND THAT THE VEHICLE SHOULD NOT BE DRIVEN. THE VEHICLE WAS THEN TAKEN TO THE DEALER AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE VEHICLE COULD BE REPAIRED AT THE CONTACT'S EXPENSE. THE MANUFACTURER WAS CONTACTED BUT PROVIDED NO ASSISTANCE. THE VIN WAS NOT AVAILABLE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS UNKNOWN AND THE CURRENT MILEAGE WAS 120,000.
Structure, Jan 17, 2013
TL* THE CONTACT OWNS A 2002 TOYOTA TACOMA. THE CONTACT STATED THAT THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FOR REGISTRATION INSPECTION AND WAS ADVISED THAT THE ENTIRE FRAME WAS RUSTED AND ROTTED. THE CONTACT SPOKE WITH THE MANUFACTURER BUT NO ASSISTANCE WAS PROVIDED. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 111,000 UPDATED 02/22/13. *JB